Want Truthful RFPs? Try Having Vendors Fact-Check Competing Bids

Written by Evan Schuman
March 16th, 2011

In today’s Internet-connected world, why do retailers still tolerate RFPs packed with lies? Why not use peer review to squeeze some truth out of them?

For as long as anyone in IT can remember, a Request For Proposal (RFP) was really a Request For Vendors To Lie To Me, Telling Me Their Products Can Do Lots Of Stuff They Can’t (RFVTLTMTMTPCDLOSTC). Somehow, the RFP acronym is the one that caught on. One key reason vendors have gotten away with this for so long is that they know the system well enough to game it. Vendors know darn well that few IT staffs will bother to do true due diligence on product claims and even fewer will bother to drag the RFP out months later and hold the vendor accountable for the lies.

After the RFPs are evaluated through simple “count the number of Yes answers” and other sophisticated techniques, a select few will get the full questioning and even fewer will get to do demos and participate in a trial. As long as no one holds vendors to the answers their teams originally gave (and who even bothers to check?), the incentive to be truthful in an RFP is nil. The fact that the competing vendors play by the same dishonest rules doesn’t help, either.

Why not try something new? Tell the next round of vendors that you will take their RFPs and, after pricing and anything else that is truly secret is removed, publish them on your site. Making it fully public is the boldest move, but you could do it partway and place the sanitized RFPs in a password-protected part of your extranet. All of the vendors submitting RFPs would have access, and they could review the submissions of their competitors.

If there are any lies or distortions, they will immediately be brought to your staff’s attention. Yes, some vendors that lie for a living (I won’t mention any names here, so y’all at SAP and Oracle can relax) will tell you that their rivals’ claims are false even if they’re true. But that’s where your team will have to do a little due diligence. Simply cc both players in an E-mail and watch the back and forth. It won’t take long to determine the truth, and the vendor that had the trackballs to lie about a rival lying will get banned from future bids.

Although this is very different behavior for a retailer, it is a good low-cost way to pressure vendors to be far more truthful in their bids. A little transparency can be a wonderful thing.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.